Into the Fray: A public challenge to Michael Oren

By Martin Sherman, JPOST
Oren2One solution could be a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian population centers in the West Bank… but unlike in Gaza, most Israeli settlements would remain within Israel, and Israeli troops would still patrol strategic borders. Of course, the preferable solution is two states for two peoples. But if that proves unattainable, then Israel can still end the occupation of the Palestinians, preserve its security, and perhaps lay new foundations for peace. – Former ambassador Michael Oren, in answer to the question, “What if the process fails?” – CNN, January 11, 2014 

The only alternative for Israel to save itself as a Jewish state is by unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank and evacuating most of the settlements. – Dr. Michael Oren, prior to his ambassadorial appointment, Haaretz, April 24, 2009 

Having proved itself – completely and conclusively – a disastrous and delusional debacle, the nutty notion of unilateral withdrawal (a.k.a. capitulation) is surging back into fashion with the fashionable bon ton set – big-time. That anyone with half a brain could still place any credence in this failed, foolhardy fantasy beggars belief.

Yet, over the past few weeks, there has been an alarming spate of public expressions of support for this harebrained and hazardous hallucination.

Erudite, eloquent, elegant 

One of the more newsworthy voices endorsing this ill-advised policy prescription was that of Michael Oren, until recently ambassador to the US.

To his credit, the affable Oren is endowed with many laudable qualities. He is eminently erudite, eloquent and elegant. Born in the US, a graduate of an Ivy League university, an acclaimed, articulate author, and well-versed in the mores and customs of US society, it is difficult to fault his appointment as envoy in Washington.

Indeed, there have been few – if any – suggestions that he discharged his challenging duties with anything but polished professionalism.

That said, however, Oren’s recent (and not so recent) pronouncements as to his policy preferences regarding the Palestinian problem indicate that deft diplomatic skills are no guarantee of political prudence or strategic acumen.

For in light of the catastrophic consequences of unilateral abandonment of Gaza, any rational observer might be excused for attributing a remarkably flat-learning curve to anyone who persists in advocating such a fatally flawed formula. Only this time, on a dramatically larger scale.

Unilateralism and ‘breaking news’ 

Graphically underscoring the pertinence of this was the following item in The Jerusalem Post’s Breaking News section at the beginning of the week.

Headlined “Schools closed in Ashdod following IAF strikes on Gaza,” it went on to report: “Following the IAF air strikes on Gaza, the Ashdod Municipality decided to cancel schools in unfortified buildings on Sunday…” This, of course, underscores the gravity of the consequences of the 2005 unilateral evacuation of the Gaza Strip and its subsequent inevitable takeover by radical extremists. In the wake of the IDF’s departure, the terror organizations there can now operate against Israel with low-cost weapons with relative ease. The Palestinians are able to disrupt the socioeconomic routine in the South at will, and, as the Post news item indicates, even the prospect of IDF punitive responses to terror attacks can lead to such disruption – because of the fear of retaliation to those actions.

The folly of unilateral withdrawal is so starkly evident that even someone like Jeffrey Goldberg, who has elevated getting it wrong to almost an art form, seems to have grasped this. Writing in Bloomberg (January 11), he remarked: “Sharon made one terrible mistake in Gaza.… His mistake was leaving unilaterally… [The] radicals in Gaza were empowered by Sharon’s unilateralism.

They believed, not entirely incorrectly, that their terrorism had paid off… The fallout from the withdrawal is well known: Hamas soon came to power and turned Gaza into a launching pad for missile attacks.”

One can only scratch one’s head in puzzlement and wonder which part of this Oren doesn’t get.

Recklessly irresponsible

After all, there is little reason to believe that what once was, will not be again. In any case, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, it would be recklessly irresponsible not to adopt such a working assumption for future policy.

Little imagination is needed to envision the havoc that would result if anything like the realities which the civilian population in the South has been subjected to, courtesy of unilateralism, were to be inflicted upon the residents of the central Coastal Plain. As I have warned repeatedly in previous columns, it would be impossible to maintain any semblance of socioeconomic routine if 80 percent of the nation’s population and commercial activity, crammed into a narrow strip, stretching roughly 65 km. north of Tel Aviv and 50 km. south of it, had to endure the bombardments the residents of Sderot experience.

Moreover, unlike in the case of the low-lying Gaza area, this heavily populated belt would lie hopelessly exposed to any hostile elements deployed in the highlands of Judea-Samaria that rise to its east and comprise much of the territory to be unilaterally abandoned.

It seems inconceivable that anyone committed to the national security of Israel and the physical safety of Israelis could contemplate forgoing Israeli control of this territory, thereby laying the foundations for the emergence of a mega-Gaza in areas evacuated by the IDF or a giant South Lebanon in areas where it remains deployed. More on this later.

Dangerous delusion of “neo-unilateralism” 

To be fair, some of today’s unilateralists (hereafter “neo-unilateralists”) acknowledge that the 2005 unilateral pullout from Gaza has been less than a stunning success, and hence, suggest that this time it be conducted differently. Typically, this difference focuses on continued IDF deployment in all, or part, of the territories over which Israel will declare it has no claims, and from which Jewish communities are to be removed – see, for example, Oren’s “unlike in Gaza… Israeli troops would still patrol strategic borders.”

Golly, what a good idea! So the Israeli military will be deployed in (read “occupy”) areas that Israel admits belong to someone else (as in pre-2000 South Lebanon), instantly and inevitably transforming it from the “Israel Defense Forces” to the “Zionist Occupation Forces.”

Unpersuasively, neo-unilateralists try to counter this by suggesting that this deployment will only last until Israel’s security can be ensured – predictably never stipulating what such assurances would be, or from whom they are to be attained – and sustained over time. But setting this “minor” omission aside for a moment, this prescription for “temporary occupation” would be dismissed as so much claptrap, with a brusque retort something along these lines: “How can you expect security while you are occupying someone else’s land. Withdraw, and you will have security.”

If Israel rejects such counsel, it will continue to maintain a situation reminiscent of pre-2000 South Lebanon.
If it complies with it, it will simply be duplicating the realities indistinguishable from those created in post-2005 Gaza.

Folly of rejecting quid pro quo for quid pro nil

Oren, who according to Haaretz (April 24, 2009), admits he “supported the disengagement from the Gaza Strip,” seems to continue believing that by unilateral withdrawal in Judea-Samaria, Israel “can still end the occupation of the Palestinians, preserve its security, and perhaps lay new foundations for peace.”

This wistful sentiment is so hopelessly unmoored from any trace of reality that it compels one to puzzle over just what is it about the Palestinian problem that makes otherwise seemingly smart people expound such utterly stupid ideas.

For anyone with even a minimal grasp of Mideast realities, it should be crystal clear that nothing will totally obliterate any chance of a negotiated peace accord more effectively than unilateralism. Gee, even Jeffrey Goldberg gets that – well, almost.

For the unmistakable message that Israeli willingness to contemplate unilateral retreat conveys, is this. If one confronts the Jews with sufficiently robust intransigence, they will capitulate and surrender everything – or at least, significant things – in exchange for absolutely nothing. Ergo, why negotiate or compromise.

Thus, even if some Palestinian partner, sincerely willing to negotiate and compromise, were to emerge at some future date, his more militant opponents could swiftly undermine his position by, rightly, pointing out that past unilateralism has proven that there is a need for neither.

Accordingly, for someone who hopes someday to “lay new foundations for peace,” nothing could be more counterproductive and foolish than advocating to replace the sober principle of quid pro quo for the fanciful quid pro nil.

Demography: The other side of the equation

Of course the alleged “ace” that unilateralists claim in their pack, is the demography card. But, in reality, it is far more like the joker.

For we should not forget that the demographic balance in the country is a function of two elements: The number of Jews and the number of Arabs.

One of course might question how realistic it would be to believe that even if Israel evacuated all, or part, of Judea-Samaria, the presence of a large, impoverished Arab population with a GDP per capita about 5% (!) that of Israel’s, would not generate irresistible economic pressures – similar to those along the US-Mexican frontier – for a large Arab influx into the country.

Even without the specter of this very plausible prospect, unilateralists ignore the detrimental effect their proposal is likely to have on the other side of the demographic equation – the Jewish side.

In this regard, a highly significant demographic fact should not be ignored. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, despite the massive influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, Israel’s Muslim population, within the pre-1967 Green Line, has, as a proportion of the population , almost doubled since independence – from just over 9% in 1949 to over 17% in 2011. The ratio of Jews to Muslims plunged from over 9 Jews to every Muslim to less than 4.5.

Now imagine the impact of a mass exodus of Jews because of a gravely deteriorating security situation.

Israel can only retain its Jewish character if it retains its Jewish population and attracts Jews around the world to choose it as their place of abode. But this can only happen if Israel affords them acceptable security and prosperity. Nothing would make it a less inviting choice than visiting the realities of Sderot on upmarket locations like Ramat Aviv and Ra’anana, Ramat Gan and Rishon Lezion – and, oh yes, Herzliya, where Oren has recently taken up a teaching position at the Interdisciplinary Center.

I urge him to consider the demographic impact of ongoing volleys of Kassam rockets landing in the vicinity of the IDC-campus – situated barely 11 km. from the pre-1967 lines…

My challenge to Oren

I hereby challenge Oren to meet me in open debate to address the points raised in this essay, and many that I have not – but that necessarily emerge from his policy prescriptions.

I challenge him to produce a map delineating the frontiers to which he sees Israel unilaterally withdrawing, and to explain how they will be delineated and secured.

I challenge him to stipulate whether Palestinian villages like Rantis and E-Luban that overlook the runway at Ben-Gurion Airport, will or will not be under Israeli control. And the hills of northern Samaria that dominate the massive Rabin power station adjacent to prestigious Caesarea, home to many from Israel’s moneyed classes? And what of areas abutting the Trans-Israel Highway (Route 6) and the approaches to Jerusalem?

I challenge him to specify whom he sees as administering the “unoccupied” Palestinian territories. Who will supply them water, electricity, postal services, tax collection? If, as is likely, the Palestinian Authority will – with good reason – refuse to take responsibility for what Israel deigns to confer to it unilaterally, who will provide civilian services to the population? And if, as in Gaza, extremists take over the reins of power, how would he recommend Israel respond? Who would be responsible for health issues, sewage, pollution control…? I challenge him to address these and numerous other issues that would drastically impact the lives of all Israelis… and the decisions of those contemplating becoming Israelis.

If he cannot do so convincingly, I call on him to desist from advancing the perilous idea of unilateralism.

Unilateralism as intellectual surrender

In conclusion, unilateralism is not a well thought out strategic choice. It is a knee-jerk reaction of those who oppose the settlement enterprise, a flimsy excuse rather than a serious policy option.

It reflects, at best intellectual surrender, at worst a preference to make Israel’s situation untenable rather than admit to error.

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)

 

January 26, 2014 | 52 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 52 Comments

  3. Felix Quigley Said:

    Martin Sherman is thus closer to the position of my movement than any other Jewish writer I have met.

    Are you including Jewish writers Trotsky and Marx below Sherman???

    Better not tell Sherman of your movements identification with him because he might change his opinions.

    I didn’t know you met Sherman.

    I am trying to develop a discussion on the views of Mr Sherman and I am finding the opposition to Sherman by Yamit82

    Tell me in what you think I am in opposition to Sherman??

    (through his untypical silences)

    If I am silent… you construe from that, that I am in opposition to Sherman???? You are weird.

  5. yamit82 Said:

    I think Felix prefers traditional Irish weapons like A shillelagh

    Like “Arthur Macbride” “a whacking shillelagh came over their heads and bade them right smart in the morning”

  11. Felix Quigley Said:

    opposition to Sherman by Yamit82 (through his untypical silences)

    that’s some mighty tough opposition there cowboy 😛
    Felix Quigley Said:

    and his trained attack dog Ross

    WOOF, WOOF! 😛
    (I am getting to like Felix, some great imagery here)

  14. honeybee Said:

    And he is a devil with the ladies,

    I gave them what they wanted and they gave me what I wanted.

    Thank Goodness I’am not a lady.!!!!!!!

    Oh yeah, then what are you?

  16. yamit82 Said:

    I find her obnoxious but most of all not funny,not good looking and very stupid with no class.

    Thankfully, first intelligent thing I hae hear on the Pundit all day.

  17. honeybee Said:

    I bet you watch Sarah Siverman too!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I don’t.

    I find her obnoxious but most of all not funny,not good looking and very stupid with no class.

  19. @ Felix Quigley:

    In fact Yamit has never crossed swords with Ross on this issue

    I say NEVER!

    Show me Yamit where you crossed swords with Ross on this

    I never use swords sometimes knives but I am an expert with a garrote.

    I love up close and personal dispatching of my enemies and Bernard Ross is not my enemy.

    Felix, what’s your preference?

  21. Felix Quigley Said:

    This is because Mr Yamit82 is a political scoundrel who operates as a clique on Israpundit

    And he is a devil with the ladies, Thank Goodness I’am not a lady.!!!!!!!!

  22. bernard ross Said:

    Perhaps you should hold your next summit at Bellevue?

    I think you will have to explain this one to Felix. He’s Irish living in Spain. 😉

    Reading Felix is like watching “Borat”.

    Not sure which of the two is more entertaining?

  24. @ David Chase:

    motivating Arab emigration is best and far more “practical”

    David, I hope you have locked the back door… This lure might just arouse some curiosity amongst some americans

  25. @ Felix Quigley:
    I do believe that Israel should be a State just for the Jewish people. There is no other better future. It will save us years of misery. I am not calling for a OSS either, necessarily, but, first, a demolition of the TSS. After that we will still hold the cards. I don’t know enough details of Caroline Glick’s proposal for a OSS but, of course, who doesn’t trust her to have Israel’s best interests at heart. I think Sherman and his idea of motivating Arab emigration is best and far more “practical”. The Muslim minorities in Europe isn’t doing them much good so I don’t like the makings of it here in a OSS either. But, ultimately, before any of these “alternatives” can be considered the TSS must come to an end. It’s best that alternatives such as these start being discusses, like they are somewhat, so that when reality sets in around the world that the TSS is forever a no-go we won’t be left in a complete vacuum.

  27. Felix Quigley Said:

    It seems to me that Mr Ross has tried to derail the main arguments of Martin Sherman, on the definition of one word, always dangerous.

    No, I merely complained about his use of the tag “unilateralist” in describing those for retreat. I doubt that it is “always dangerous” to discuss a word. However, living in a world of Stalinist purges I can sympathize with your alarm.

  28. Felix Quigley Said:

    So if last week you were “unilateral” and this was surrendering key Jewish land to the enemy how are you any better tan Livni or Sharon?

    I suggest a remedial course in reading comprehension. Gaza has already been surrendered by Israel. If it is to return to Israel it will be by war like Jordan, Lebanon and Sinai. I suggested it as one of 3 destinations that require no agreement to deposit hostiles(Syria, Lebanon, gaza). I prefer gaza for the west bank arabs to YS. I am happy to send them to Syria and lebanon instead of Gaza. However, I relish the thought of sending the PLO/ Fatah to gaza where they and Hamas can throw each other off buildings.
    Felix Quigley Said:

    First of all Mr Ross was leaving Gaza for the Arabs and was anticipating the Arabs building a Singapore there, for all he cared, that may even be the words he used

    apparently you have no sense of humor. I dont care what they do as long as they are out of Israel. I made simply the point that viable states have been created with more population on less land than Gaza and gave Hong King and Monaco as an example. you apparently completely miss the point. Is this an example of “One flew over the cuckoos nest”?
    Felix Quigley Said:

    This is because Mr Yamit82 is a political scoundrel who operates as a clique on Israpundit.

    Scoundrel? 😛
    Felix Quigley Said:

    That is why he was as quiet as a mouse when Ross mouthed about how he would thus betray the Jews

    😛 😛 😛
    Felix Quigley Said:

    I am trying to develop a discussion on the views of Mr Sherman and I am finding the opposition to Sherman by Yamit82 (through his untypical silences) and his trained attack dog Ross unhelpful in the extreme.

    Perhaps you should hold your next summit at Bellevue?
    Reading Felix is like watching “Borat”.

  29. @ yamit82:Felix Quigley Said:

    In fact Yamit has never crossed swords with Ross on this issue

    I say NEVER!

    Show me Yamit where you crossed swords with Ross on this

    En Garde Monsieur, Don Quixote is watching! 😛

  30. The Martin Sherman article was first in The Jerusalem Post. All are in broad agreement with Sherman except for one, Itzik Sivosh. Is he from the Israel Labour Party? On his Facebook Page Sivosh has this quotation from Golda Meir. I followed up this quatation

    START GOLDA MEIR QUOTE
    We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.Golda Meir, to Anwar Saddat just before the peace talks.
    Israeli (Russian-born) politician (1898 – 1978)

    http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33312.html

    This must be one of the worst things any Israeli leader has ever said.

    However Sivosh on the Jerusalem Post in opposing Sherman is in a minority of one

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Into-the-Fray-A-public-challenge-to-Michael-Oren-339234

  31. It seems to me that Mr Ross has tried to derail the main arguments of Martin Sherman, on the definition of one word, always dangerous. I do wonder indeed why he operates in this way.

    The main argument of Martin Sherman is that as long as Arabs are remaining on the land of Israel, then the people of Israel will never have a moment of peace

    The position of Martin Sherman is the same position that I take up. That is that Israel should as the Jewish Homeland be a land only for the Jews.

    Any non-Jew in Israel must be there as a guest. This has great implications for strategy and tactics.

    Thus Mr Chase has more validity than Ross. Chase is arguing I think that much work needs to be done yet to attack the 2 state concept and I think there is indeed much work to be done.

    I would place his planned work though in this context…that it is better for all that Israel is a state for the Jews alone. I mean it…for all. That is the essence of what I understand by his continual reference to a humanitarian solution.

    Martin Sherman is thus closer to the position of my movement than any other Jewish writer I have met.

    I am trying to develop a discussion on the views of Mr Sherman and I am finding the opposition to Sherman by Yamit82 (through his untypical silences) and his trained attack dog Ross unhelpful in the extreme.

  32. Why it is significant that Yamit82 did not attack bernard Ross when Ross suggested leaving Gaza to the Arabs and that he wished for the Arabs to build a thriving state there.

    This is because Mr Yamit82 is a political scoundrel who operates as a clique on Israpundit. That is why he was as quiet as a mouse when Ross mouthed about how he would thus betray the Jews in surrendering the key Gaza area to the savage enemy.

  33. First of all Mr Ross was leaving Gaza for the Arabs and was anticipating the Arabs building a Singapore there, for all he cared, that may even be the words he used

    Mr Yamit82 then proceeded to TOTALLY ignore this position taken up by Ross

    In fact Yamit has never crossed swords with Ross on this issue

    I say NEVER!

    Show me Yamit where you crossed swords with Ross on this

  34. But Mr Ross

    You are the very man who was proposing on this fórum last week to take a “unilateral” action to drive the Arabs into Gaza, thus surrendering this key part of the Jewish Homeland to the enemy.

    So if last week you were “unilateral” and this was surrendering key Jewish land to the enemy how are you any better tan Livni or Sharon?

  35. David Chase Said:

    the unilateralism of annexation will carry with it negativity even for a public wishing but not believing in the doability of the TSS. That should change once it is dead and buried.

    Notice the idea that Israel can only annex as a reaction to the action of others. Israel must wait for others to tire of TSS before acting unilaterally in its own interest. I am not saying that in the context of the current malaise that this is good or bad, but note that it reflects the Jewish stockholm syndrome mentality of needing to please the master. The GOI does not even have the courage to unilaterally speak…………….and declare the simple statement that “jewish settlement in YS is legal”. That which it cannot even speak it will be unlikely to ever do. The words need to be spoken by Jews and Israelis, these are the words that the foreigners fear the most and when the words are spoken they become outraged because they fear its truth and that the Jews may act upon their rights and upon the truth. They go ballistic but have no legal arguments.
    Why does the GOI never speak this truth?

  36. David Chase Said:

    The UNILATERALISM OF ANNEXATION is good but as long as the TSS is still up in the air, still being talked about, the unilateralism of annexation will carry with it negativity even for a public wishing but not believing in the doability of the TSS. That should change once it is dead and buried.

    No. It is not just a matter of wording. Israel is afraid of assertive, independent action that is NOT in agreement with the foreign consensus, that is what unilateral means. In Israel the word is only associated with compliant action which is in agreement with the foreign consensus: this is the exact opposite of what unilateral infers. Israel has identified a liberating word of independent action with a compliant and kowtowing action: an error indicating a collective neurosis. The only acceptable unilateralism in Israel is that which complies with the consensus. Israel considers unilateralism BAD because the only unilateral action it can conceive of is retreat.
    When I posted my advocacy of annexation and transfer recently, with one of the major selling points being that it can be done unilaterally with no ones agreement, a poster replied that unilateralism failed every time in the past. This is how people are brainwashed. The poster had done what Sherman does which was to only identify unilateralism with retreat.

  37. bernard ross Said:

    @ David Chase:
    Unilateral
    (of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others.
    Unilateralism
    A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.
    UNILATERALISM IS GOOD! Retreat is bad! They are not synonymous!

    I agree. That is my point. The UNILATERALISM OF ANNEXATION is good but as long as the TSS is still up in the air, still being talked about, the unilateralism of annexation will carry with it negativity even for a public wishing but not believing in the doability of the TSS. That should change once it is dead and buried.

  38. David Chase Said:

    Then the fear of “unilateral” annexation will be more palpable.

    Putting the adjective unilateral before the nouns retreat, withdrawal,annexation or transfer is unnecessary. Only withdrawal requires the word unilateral to further describe the action to set it apart from withdrawal by agreement. The others would only come about through unilateralism. Therefore unilateralism is more indicative of positive independent moves which defy the consensus as opposed to withdrawal and retreat which are a bowing to consensus. We know that annexation does not need the descriptive adjective “unilateral”. Therefore a true unilateralist would be one advocating transfer or annexation which is done without agreement. A poor choice of words for a journalist.

  39. @ David Chase:
    Unilateral
    (of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others.
    Unilateralism
    A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.
    UNILATERALISM IS GOOD! Retreat is bad! They are not synonymous!

  40. @ rfelsted:
    “That has to be reversed.”

    How?

    With time and making the public aware of different options. By not giving in and letting the TSS die a natural death first- no “unilateral” annexation before then. It confuses the issue. Once the patient is off the deadly medication the doctor will be able to prescribe something more appropriate but we have to get off the dangerous medication of the TSS first. Then the fear of “unilateral” annexation will be more palpable. Right now, with the negotiations going on, the opposing paths get confused but if we wait it out the public mindset should quickly change. We should let Abbas reject the TSS. As Eugene Kontorovich has pointed out, the Palestinians are more afraid of the OSS than we should be. I’m not saying the OSS is the ultimate answer either but the public would be more likely to reverse it’s state of mind if we stopped fearing it so much. Sherman is right when he talks about finding ways to reduce the Arab population through financial incentivization for Palestinians to emigrate. Once the TSS is over and done with we can annex and they can choose residency living in a Jewish State or leave. And we’ll have the real estate. Palestinian wouldnow have to attend schools not under their control. Again, if they don’t like it they can leave. It worked in East Jerusalem and in the Golan. Does anybody actually think this scenario is worse than a TSS? or that the public can’t be made to understand that.

  41. David Chase Said:

    What has to reverse is the negativity in the public consciousness towards the “unilateralism” of annexation and the approaching apparent acceptability of the “unilateralism” of retreat.

    I think I am not making my poiint clearly. Sherman only uses the words “unilateral”, “unilateralists” and unilateralism in a negative light and as represtative of only ONE type of unilateral action. It is absurd when one understands the definition of the world unilateral and how impo0rtant it is for israel to have the courage to take unilateral action. However, Israel only identifies the word with defeat, retreat, withdrawal, giving up etc. there is no reason for identifying the word unilateral with negatives. This is the fault of journalists like Martin Sherman not only for sloppy use of language but also for perpetuating a mindset. UNILATERALISM IS GOOD!!!!!!! Martin Sherman makes it bad. I have always used the word unilateral wrt Israeli action as being GOOD and never as retreat.
    What is “Unilateralism”? It is certainly not limited to retreating actions as promoted here:

    Unilateralism and ‘breaking news’ …..
    Little imagination is needed to envision the havoc that would result if anything like the realities which the civilian population in the South has been subjected to, courtesy of unilateralism, …………
    For anyone with even a minimal grasp of Mideast realities, it should be crystal clear that nothing will totally obliterate any chance of a negotiated peace accord more effectively than unilateralism………..
    Of course the alleged “ace” that unilateralists claim in their pack, is the demography card. ………
    Even without the specter of this very plausible prospect, unilateralists ignore the detrimental effect their proposal is likely to have………….
    If he cannot do so convincingly, I call on him to desist from advancing the perilous idea of unilateralism……….
    Unilateralism as intellectual surrender……….
    In conclusion, unilateralism is not a well thought out strategic choice………….

    It is a complete misuse of language and in this case a detrimental undeserved connotation given to the word unilateral. the word is synonymous with independence not retreat. It would help if Journalists did not foreclose the use of the word unilateral for positive independent and courageous action such as annexation and transfer. UNILATERALISM IS GOOD! Retreat is bad!

  43. @ bernard ross:
    I don’t think Sherman would at all be against the “unilateralism” of annexation. (although he rightfully cautions about the OSS) What has to reverse is the negativity in the public consciousness towards the “unilateralism” of annexation and the approaching apparent acceptability of the “unilateralism” of retreat. Sherman’s basic premise is that ANY deal leading to two states- unilateral or even bi-lateral should be spit out. For some reason the public mindset is more afraid of the “unilateralism” of annexation than the “unilateralism” of retreat. That has to be reversed.

  44. David Chase Said:

    I don’t think he was demonizing the word “unilateralism” at all. It was clear that he was talking about the “unilateralism” of retreat.

    the problem is that the word unilateralism is identified in Israel with retreat when it could easily be identified with annexation. Unilateralism by itself has no positive or negative connotation. In my opinion unilateralism is a good thing for Israel but the right unilateral choices must be made as opposed to unilateral retreat which is how Israelis see unilateralism. This identification paints unilateral action incorrectly, as if independent action is to be avoided. Israelis would be better off if they depended less on the agreement of others(bi lateral, multi lateral,consensus,etc). I encourage Israel to make unilateral decisions and take unilateral action because those are the only actions which do not depend on others. Sherman perpetuates the identification of unilateralism as negative. It is not negative, it is positive when the right choice is made: annexation and transfer can be done unilaterally.

  46. @ bernard ross:

    Would Gaza have been better if it was done with a bi–lateral agreement and will the west bank retreat be better if done by agreement? I don’t think so.

    Nothing like understatements…
    🙂

  47. @ bernard ross:
    So true, bernard ross!

    Unilateral moves that benefit Israel and secure her freedoms are good! Michael Oren’s kind of unilateralism is no more than retreat and capitulation.

  48. Unilateralism as intellectual surrender

    Martin Sherman employs an improper application of the meaning of “unilateralism”. He confuses the methodology of a behavior with the content of the methodology. E.g. unilateral retreat = bad whereas unilateral annexation or transfer may be good. It is the retreat or the annexation which is the main content of the behavior. It is a mistake to demonize the word unilateral. IN a history of multi-lateral pressure and agreements, most of which failed, a unilateral solution can be effective simply because the solution’s success requires no agreements from undependable partners. Retreat from the west bank is not being criticized because of unilateralism but because the partners are undependable and agreements would therefore be undependable even in bi-lateral agreements. One cannot determine the outcome because it relies on agreements with undependable partners. Furthermore, criticizing unilateral action, in general, implies that Israel must depend on agreements with others to arrive at a solution. I believe that unilateral withdrawal would be unsuccessful because the enemy would continue its war. However, I also believe that a negotiated withdrawal would be unsuccessful because they would continue the war. The key is not that it is unilateral but that the enemy cannot be trusted whether unilateral or bilaterally accomplished. However, unilateral annexation can be successful if the GOI has a plan based on likely expected behaviors of the enemies whereas unilateral withdrawal would be unsuccessful based on the likely expected behaviors of the enemy not being planned for sufficiently. The word unilateral is not bad and in the case of annexation and transfer is superbly GOOD! Israel need not depend on others to implement solutions and if there is no better solution than the status quo then the status quo should be maintained.
    It’s a mistake to demonize the word unilateral because future good solutions which are unilateral will be criticized simply because they are unilateral and identified with former unilateral solutions which failed because they were bad solutions whether unilateral or not. Would Gaza have been better if it was done with a bi–lateral agreement and will the west bank retreat be better if done by agreement? I don’t think so. The target should not be the word unilateral but rather the retreat itself.

  49. Seven Existential Threats </strong>

    Jerry Gordon comment: This opinion piece by Israeli Ambassador designate to the US, Dr. Michael Oren should be mandatory reading by Rham Emanuel, Gen. James Jones, NSC chief, Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton and every Member of Congress. His seven existential threats include: loss of Jerusalem; Arab demographic threat; delegitimization; terrorism; a nuclear armed Iran; and, the hemorrhaging of Sovereignty.

    by Michael B. Oren, Commentary, May, 2009

    Ted Belman : “Amb. Michael Oren sounds like a leftist”